LEARNING STATIONS: SUPREME COURT CASES
This activity will enable students to recognize landmark Supreme Court cases. It is
assumed that the students will have a general knowledge of LANDMARK U.S. Supreme
Court Cases.
Instructions:
1. Post the learning stations on the wall around the room.
2. Assign students (individually or in small groups depending on class size) to go
around the room to each station and read the cards. [Students can begin at any station
and continue around the room until they return to their starting point.]
3. Students (or groups) should record the station number and determine the correct
case described in the scenario along with their reason for their decision. [Groups should
discuss their decisions and come to a consensus among members.]
4. After all students (groups) have completed the assignment, discuss the correct
responses.
Answers:
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Station 10
Station 11
Station 12
Station 13
Station 14
Station 15
E.
A.
D.
B.
A.
B.
A.
E.
D.
C.
D.
B.
B.
D.
D.
Schenck v. United States, 1919
Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
Korematsu v. U.S., 1944
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
Brown v. board of Education, 1954
Roe v. Wade, 1973
STATION 1
During World War I, an anti-war protestor produced and distributed a
pamphlet maintaining that the military draft was illegal, and was convicted
under the Espionage Act of attempting to cause insubordination in the
military and to obstruct recruiting. He and his attorney maintained in their
argument before the Supreme Court that, under the First Amendment, he
had the right to this freedom of speech. The Court’s ruling, written by
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, rejected the argument that the pamphlet
was protected by First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, and
stated that speech may be suppressed by the government if it creates a
clear and present danger to the people of the U.S.
A. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969
B. Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964
C. Holmes v. Warren, 1945
D. U.S. v. Nixon, 1974
E. Schenck v. United States, 1919
STATION 2
A man was arrested in connection with a murder and brought to the police
station. He repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but was never allowed out
of the interrogation room. His lawyer even went so far as to come to the
police station in search of him, but was denied access. The accused then
confessed while under interrogation to firing the shot that killed the victim.
As a result, he was soon convicted. He and his attorney appealed to the
Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction. The Court ruled that “when
a suspect has been taken into custody...the suspect has requested...his
lawyer, and the police have not... warned him of his right to remain silent,
the accused has been denied...counsel in violation of the Sixth
Amendment."
A. Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964
B. Engle v. Vitale, 1962
C. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
D. Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
E. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
STATION 3
A resident of the state of Louisiana who was 1/8th black challenged that
state’s “Jim Crow” law requiring blacks and whites to ride in separate
coaches on trains (this was a “test case” challenging all such laws). In
order to do this, he got himself arrested on purpose by refusing to give up
his seat in a first class “whites only” railroad coach. At the Supreme Court
hearing, his attorney argued that the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal
protection and due process under the law. The Court ruled that segregation
under state law was constitutional as long as public facilities provided for
blacks and whites were “equal,” and that any discrimination existed only in
the mind of the black community. This ruling established the precedent of
“separate but equal” that protected states’ segregation laws for the next 60
years.
A. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 1997
B. Barron v. Baltimore
C. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988
D. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
E. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857
STATION 4
First Supreme Court decision to declare an act of Congress
unconstitutional; it established the Court’s power of “judicial review.” A
president’s last-minute appointment of a political supporter as a federal
judge was rejected by the newly-elected president, when the papers arrived
after his inaugural. The appointee then sued to get his judgeship, to force
the Secretary of State to give him his job. The power to force a president to
give such commissions was granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, part of
which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; the appointee
did not end up getting his federal judgeship.
A. Barron v. Baltimore, 1833
B. Marbury v. Madison, 1803
C. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
D. Fletcher v. Peck, 1810
E. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
STATION 5
A slave from Missouri sued for his freedom, arguing that since his master
traveled with him to “free” territories (in the old Northwest Territories where
slavery was banned), he should have been released. The Supreme Court
ruled that blacks, whether free or slave, could not become citizens because
they were not considered citizens by Constitution; that Missouri
Compromise’s ban against slavery in newly-gained territories was
unconstitutional; and that slavery was a matter of state law and could not
be protected or banned by either the Congress or the President.
A. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857
B. Schenck v. United States, 1919
C. Barron v. Baltimore, 1833
D. Weeks v. United States, 1914
E. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
STATION 6
A drifter from Missouri was charged in Florida with breaking into a pool hall
and stealing a small amount of cash and beverages. Denied a courtappointed attorney during his trial, he was convicted of felony burglary and
sentenced to five years in prison. He wrote his own appeal to the Florida
Supreme Court and later the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the trial
court's refusal to appoint legal counsel for him denied him rights
"guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” The Court agreed
with the prisoner’s attorney’s statement that “the right to counsel may not
be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it
is in ours.” He was granted a new trial with a lawyer appointed for him, was
found not guilty, and set free. Since that time, all states’ justice systems
have provided attorneys for poor defendants.
A. Stack v. Boyle, 1951
B. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
C. Feiner v. New York, 1951
D. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
E. Denis v. United States, 1951
STATION 7
Numerous states had allowed an imbalance in the population of legislative
districts to occur, usually resulting in urban (often ethnic minority) residents
being under-represented in Congress and state legislatures. After hearing
the case, the Court ruled that seats in the U.S. House of Representatives
and in both houses of state legislatures must be apportioned on the basis
of “one person, one vote.” In his written opinion for the majority, Chief
Justice Earl Warren wrote: "The right to vote freely for the candidate of
one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions
on that right strike at the heart of representative government."
A. Korematsu v. United States, 1944
B. Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
C. Roe v. Wade, 1973
D. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
E. Gideon v. Wainright, 1963
STATION 8
Federal laws take priority over state laws in regulating commerce among
and between the states, in this case involving a monopoly granted by the
state of New York to a steamship company. The ruling by the Court
established that the Constitution defines federal power to regulate
commerce and no part of such power can be exercised by a state. Finally,
the decision by the Court further established the supremacy of the national
government over the states.
A. Marbury v. Madison, 1803
B. Kramer v. Kramer, 1982
C. Munn v. Illinois, 1877
D. United States v. Nixon, 1974
E. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
STATION 9
This case centered around an American citizen of Japanese ancestry who
was arrested and convicted for not reporting to a re-location center for
Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II. He and his attorney
argued that his civil rights had been violated, that the re-location program
was not based on a reasonable fear of sabotage and/or espionage during
wartime – that it was based on discrimination against a particular racial
group, and thus was unconstitutional. The Court’s ruling sustained the
legality of the order to re-locate this large groups of people (including the
defendant), stating that the government’s actions were “an exercise of the
power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and
sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack…”
A. Mineta v. Busch, 1942
B. Sulu v. Kirk, 1968
C. Gitlow v. New York, 1925
D. Korematsu v. U.S., 1944
E. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
STATION 10
Public schools cannot require students to recite prayers. In New York, the
state Board of Regents had prepared a "non-denominational" prayer for
use in the public schools, trying to avoid anything that might offend one
particular religious group or another. But in one school district a group of
parents challenged the prayer as "contrary to the beliefs, religions, or
religious practices of both themselves and their children." The state's
highest court upheld the use of the prayer, on the grounds that state law
did not force any student to join in the prayer over a parent's objections.
The parents appealed. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled
against state-sponsored prayers, stating that the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment rests upon the belief that "a union of government and
religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
A. Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964
B. Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
C. Engel v. Vitale, 1962
D. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg County Schools, 1971
E. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
STATION 11
A man was arrested and taken directly to the police station. A victim of rape
and kidnapping identified him as the perpetrator. The police then brought
the accused into the interrogation room, questioned him for two hours, and
received a signed confession. The police had never advised him of his right
to an attorney or the fact that anything he said could be used against him in
a court of law. The Court ruled that "the defendant's confession was
inadmissible because he was not in any way [informed] of his right to
council nor was his privilege against self-incrimination effectively protected
in any other manner." He was granted a new trial, this time without use of
the signed confession, and was again found guilty and sentenced to prison.
A. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
B. Katz v. United States, 1967
C. Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969
D. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
E. Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
STATION 12
This ruling by the Court allowed a broad interpretation of the Constitution in
determining the federal government’s implied powers. The Chief Justice
wrote, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” therefore states
are not allowed under the Constitution to destroy the national government,
and therefore they (states) would not be allowed the power to tax a branch
of the Bank of the United States.
A. U.S. v. Nixon, 1974
B. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
C. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
D. Roe v. Wade, 1973
E. Marbury v. Madison, 1803
STATION 13
A medical student had twice been rejected by the medical school of his
choice, even though he had a higher grade point average than a number of
minority candidates who were admitted. He sued the university system,
claiming “reverse discrimination.” As a result of the decision, he was
admitted to the medical school and eventually graduated. This had a
chilling effect on affirmative action in college admissions programs. Due to
the Court’s ruling, race could be one of the factors considered in choosing
a diverse student body in university admissions decisions, but the use of
quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permissible.
A. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940
B. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
C. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg County Schools, 1971
D. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989
E. Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 1990
STATION 14
An elementary student was refused admission to her neighborhood’s
“white” elementary school because the local school district followed rules
that segregated the races in different schools. A “test case” taken on by the
NAACP attorneys, they charged that (in this case and ten others)
segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
practice of segregating public school students by race. The justices
concluded that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but
equal’ has no place… separate educational facilities are inherently
unequal.”
A. Engel v. Vitale, 1962
B. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
C. Ford v. Shevvy, 1906
D. Brown v. board of Education, 1954
E. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857
STATION 15
This case resulted in legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.
The Court’s decision, based on the right of privacy, struck down dozens of
state anti-abortion statutes. It was based on two cases that of an unmarried
woman from Texas, where abortion was illegal unless the mother's life was
at risk, and that of a poor, married mother of three from Georgia, where
state law required permission for an abortion from a panel of doctors and
hospital officials. While establishing the right to an abortion, this decision
gave states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of
pregnancy to protect the woman and the “potential” life of the unborn child.
A. Furman v. Georgia, 1972
B. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
C. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989
D. Roe v. Wade, 1973
E. Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 1990